Meyers v. Royce Haulage Corp.

190 Misc. 777, 76 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1947 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3575
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 6, 1947
StatusPublished

This text of 190 Misc. 777 (Meyers v. Royce Haulage Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Meyers v. Royce Haulage Corp., 190 Misc. 777, 76 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1947 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3575 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1947).

Opinion

Pecora, J.

Motion is made to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that plaintiff’s failure to commence the action within one year from the date the action accrued acts as a bar thereto. (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 29.) The accident occurred on January 2, 1946. Although plaintiff states he never applied for compensation and that no formal award was made, he admits that the State Insurance Fund sent him “ a check each and every week ’ ’ commencing shortly after the accident. Under section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, if an employee has taken compensation and intends to sue a third party, not his employer, he must commence such action not later than six months after the awarding of compensation and in any event before the expiration of one year from the date the action accrues. After the expiration of such periods, by force of the provision of the statute, the cause of action is deemed assigned to the insurance carrier. (Calagna v. Sheppard-Pollak, Inc., 264 App. Div. 589; Carter v. Brooklyn Ladder Co., Inc., 265 App. Div. 39; Grossman v. Consolidated Edison Co., 294 N. Y. 39; Taylor v. New York Central R. R. Co., 294 N. Y. 397.) It appears here that at the time of' such accident plaintiff’s employer carried workmen’s compensation with the State Insurance Fund. Plaintiff has taken compensation from the State Insurance Fund. He did not commence this action until May 7, 1947, or more than one year from the accrual of the action. Consequently the cause of action is deemed assigned to the insurance carrier. The motion to dismiss is, therefore, granted. Settle order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Grossman v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.
60 N.E.2d 199 (New York Court of Appeals, 1945)
Taylor v. New York Central R.R. Co.
62 N.E.2d 777 (New York Court of Appeals, 1945)
Calagna v. Sheppard-Pollak, Inc.
264 A.D. 589 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1942)
Carter v. Brooklyn Ladder Co.
265 A.D. 39 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
190 Misc. 777, 76 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1947 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyers-v-royce-haulage-corp-nysupct-1947.